Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 shooting of Philadelphia police officer

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Although E.M.Gregory made substantial improvements to the article, there was no general agreement that this proved the topic met the criteria for inclusion, and the conversation started to get heated, which is usually a good time to kick the discussion into the long grass. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2016 shooting of Philadelphia police officer

[edit]
2016 shooting of Philadelphia police officer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear example of WP:NOTNEWS. Single news event without lasting coverage or notability. All of the citations are from the couple of months immediately following the event. Searching for lasting coverage, I found news articles from the day the suspect was convicted, and nothing since. CrispyGlover (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nom's assertion about sources - "nothing since" - is flatly contradicted by the simplest WP:BEFORE search on any reasonable keywords, such as: "Edward Archer" + Philadelphia; "Jesse Hartnett" + Philadelphia; "Edward Archer" + "Islamic State. Here:[1], for example, is a gNews search on "Edward Archer" " convicted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I don't see what differentiates this from all the news events that are covered every single day. The link to Wikipedia is not a newspaper is a useful one; it states "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." I don't see any enduring notability here - there's a burst of coverage after it happens, like with all cop shootings, and a burst of coverage after the conviction - and that's it. Rockypedia (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Note that User:Rockypedia has been indefinitely blocked as a puppet master, and that Nom was one of his socks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, clear case oj WP:NOTNEWS. As User:Icewhiz says, coverage is from the time of the incident & time of the trial.TheLongTone (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Encouraging to see the "I can throw the same news story at you so this is notable" rationale is not cutting it with most of the editors thus far. Clearly another case of why we are not news; it is simply illogical to claim there has been continued coverage when there has only been brief bursts of reports at exactly the time we would expect them.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per GracefulSlick above; WP:ROUTINE and "wire spamming", which just takes the same story and with minor rewrites or re-configuring of content, makes it seem like a clean source. Nate • (chatter) 19:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:HEY, KEEP - article has been updated and expanded. The WP:SIGCOV meets WP:NCRIME criteria of WP:GEOSCOPE with 2 years of regional, national and some international coverage. There has been WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE that is WP:DIVERSE with multiple, unique, WP:INDEPTH articles not only in Pennsylvania, but in such national publications as the Wall Street Journal. And although 2 years is soon for scholarly coverage, there have been 2 articles in the Journal of the Philadelphia Bar Association. The assertion that coverage is WP:ROUTINE is refuted by the nature of sources already on the page. Reasons for the intense coverage probably include: the unusual nature of the attack on a police officer with no apparent precipitating incident or motivation; , the video showing PERP sticking his gun into the patrol car and shooting the officer at point-blank range; the fact that the seriously wounded officer gave chase; statements by Perp declaring his Islamist motivations, including statements of jihadist motivation made at trial.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please WP:AGF. Searches get over a thousand hits. I expanded the article - which was desperately in need of updating - by adding s INDEPTH coverage from well regarded, large circulation publications, like the Philadelphia Inquirer a paper that, after I had looked at several articles, told me that I had "exceeded my monthly limit" and would have to pay. So I switched to a news archive search. It is perfectly legitimate to cite articles using the URL in a news archive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you ran out of free stories for the month on one site solely to source this then moved to an archive site with the same source, you're doing it wrong. Articles require a diversity of sources, not just one publication following the story through a number of months, as the Inquirer has clearly (but yes, rightfully) done. This is no better than the "wire spamming" I described above and only shows local notability rather than anything that has sustained outside the Delaware Valley. Nate • (chatter) 03:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 57 and 58 are from the same writer just writing for two publications that share a newsroom. 65 is just another bullet-point made by an NRA spokeswoman in her book to advance a certain agenda. And the vast majority of sources outside Philadelphia are just 'crime beat' stories which are hardly unique and parrot the local media with only appropriate drop-ins to point out things unfamiliar to readers outside of the Delaware Valley. It is pure wire-spamming. Nate • (chatter) 16:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, you are asserting, to take just one example, that the articles that ran in the Wall Street Journal, and that did not credit a wire service but that were signed by journalists Scott Calmert (11 January 2016,) Devlin Barrett (13 January 2016) were "wire-spannimg"? That, in other words, the Wall Street Journal pretends to have put their own reporter on the story when they are merely copying a wire service story without copying the wire service? You may want to take a closer look at the sources. If you find actual evidence of wire-spamming, by all means remove it. But the notion that major newspapers behave in the manner you have accused them of behaving is absurd.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the duplicate cites, I have deleted one. On your 2nd point, even if a fact provided by a partisan organization is cited to as part of an argument in a book by Dana Loesch, we nevertheless have a well-known political commentator discussing this case as part of an argument she is making in a book. You are, however, ignoring the fact that the article is sourced to over 60 published books, stories by numerous authors in geographically disparate major media, plus academic articles over the course of more than two years. Just as an example, here [2] for those who can access it, is my search of the shooters name the in the Wall Street Journal, most of the 17 are signed articles reported by journalists working for the Journal. the assertion that coverage is local, is wire spamming, or fits NOTNEWS is simply invalid. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of WP:SIGCOV from scholarly sources example [3]--Shrike (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you clarify that assertion, in light of the fact that this article is sourced to over 60 published books, stories by numerous authors in geographically disparate major media, plus academic articles published over the course of well over two years?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The WP:SIGCOV meets WP:NCRIME criteria of WP:GEOSCOPE with 2 years of regional, national and some international coverage indeed. User Shrike and user E.M.Gregory are right in their assertions.BabbaQ (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the story received the media coverage it got because the shooting was originally thought to be related to ISIS, yet no evidence of their involvement was ever proven. This is purely a mentally unstable individual who became radicalized in his head, and decided to shoot a cop. The shooting was politicized by others with their own agenda to push. Thankfully the officer didn't die, but that serves to make this even less notable. Today we have the luxury of hindsight to see that the event didn't deserve the broad media coverage it got. Overall, a routine occurrence, and I think that WP:NOTNEWS carries more weight here. TimTempleton (talk)

(cont) 18:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to TimTempleton. In their 2016 Brookings Institution book, Countering Terrorism, political science professor Martha Crenshaw and criminology professor Gary LaFree rather agree with you, arguing that Archer's "motives were obscure" despite his repeated claim "to be acting in the name of Allah and ISIS." By contrast, in his 2017 book Unholy Alliance: The Agenda Iran, Russia, and Jihadists Share for Conquering the World, First Amendment attorney Jay Sekulow places Archer in a group of "Muslims (who) choose to bring Islam to the West through violent acts of jihadist terrorism." The fact is that discussion of Perp's motives for the point-blank attack on a police officer have been canvassed in WP:SIGCOV that includes scholarly articles and INDEPTH journalism. It does not take a CRYSTALBALL to predice that it will be revisited when the trialcorrection:sentencing hearing - begins this summer. Motivation, meanwhile, is only one of several aspects of this shooting that have attracted EXTENSIVE and ONGOING coverage in books, scholarly and news articles. Furthermore our standard is WP:GNG not our personal opinions about what should and should not be written about in books and newspapers.) WP:GNG and WP:NCRIME are met in this case by extensive and ONGOING coverage in WP:RS journals, news media and books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also the runaway bride cause in NCRIME If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred (e.g., the Runaway bride case) since that would not make the matter less notable. - it matters not what the final verdict here is (and the jury is still out) - whether an ISIS connection was proved is immaterial, what matters is coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's been found guilty - we're just waiting for the sentencing. There is a fundamental difference of opinion which basically comes down to the question: is an event notable if it turns out to not have been as much of a big deal as the media once thought it was? I get the runaway bride comparison, but that was a rare event. A crazy man shooting a cop is sadly not rare, especially since he was just wounded. This reminds me of several similar past discussions about terrorism attacks where there were no fatalities, such as the 2017 Yavneh attack. Deletion discussion: [[4]] That one was kept, but I voted delete there also, for the same reason. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tim, You call him a "crazy man," but the judge looked at his status and ruled him competent to stand trial. Also, in this case, coverage has been ongoing since January 2016, and includes substantive discussions in 4 books by bluelinked authors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • He may have been ruled competent to stand trial, but his violent action certainly doesn't suggest he was a normally functioning member of society. But that's irrelevant to this discussion. What's key is that if you take away the ISIS claims, which are generally accepted as being made up, this is a routine police shooting by an angry man. I feel that by voting this article as worthy of inclusion, we are in some way legitimizing the falsehood he tried to spread. Unfortunately, this is likely going to be a no consensus, which is the same as a keep. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 04:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you source your assertion that "the ISIS claims, which are generally accepted as being made up,", are "a falsehood". Multiple scholarly sources now on the page make clear that perp claimed to have attacked a police officer on behalf of ISIS, discussing it as an instance of a perp who was inspired by the idea of jihad, without actually being in contact with ISIS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. Keep in mind that I knew nothing about this when I came to the deletion review. Everything I know is from reading legitimate sources. [[5]] "Authorities later said there was no evidence indicating that Archer had coordinated the attack with any terrorist organization, and he was never charged with terrorism-related counts." [[6]] "Comey said authorities had found nothing to suggest that confessed shooter Edward Archer was part of an organized terrorist cell or was planning any follow-up attack." TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. You are unaware of the definition of [[lone wolf (terrorism}]], carried out by individuals who have had no contact with radical or violent groups, but who pick up ideas from TV or websites. For the short course, you might want to take a look at Age of Lone Wolf Terrorism, a book that explores Archer's trajectory as a type.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm familiar with the term - seems very subjective to assign his random statements weight, when someone can say whatever they want, to get attention. Some people also act on voices in their heads they claim to hear. There's a lot written about schizophrenia also. I'm focusing more on his violent action being non-notable, not its purported inspiration. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really wish you hadn't. Heymann's are supposed to signify improvements to an article, not selective quotes and a POV essay on why mentally ill suspects can/should still be called terrorists--as long as its Islamist terrorism. I would almost be willing to change my !vote to return the article to its prior form; it would still be unnotable, but at least imitate an encyclopedic entry.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Meets and exceeds WP:SIGCOV, with 80 citations so far. People's unfounded objections include WP:ROUTINE, but that's a misreading of the policy. See WP:NOTROUTINE, which reads, for example, «Once every four years, the United States holds an election for President. These elections are "routinely" covered by every news outlet and the event is a "pre-planned event" as a part of the United States Constitution. However, that does not mean that this coverage would be excluded from notability discussions because of the WP:ROUTINE guideline.» Besides, WP:ROUTINE is designed to weed out "announcements, sports, or celebrities," not actual lone wolf terrorism. Another unfounded objection is WP:NOTNEWS, but WP:SIGCOV alone trumps that, and anyway the book citations nix the argument, as, by definition, coverage of the subject in books by definition is not news. The final objection raised is "selective quotes and a POV essay." This is egregious, since WP:DINC, deletion is not cleanup: if anyone has any genuine objections to the material as presented, the forum to raise it is on the TP, and not AfD. XavierItzm (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2016_shooting_of_Philadelphia_police_officer&oldid=1068819843"